Ajay Bhanot, J. - (1.) Heard Sri Shailesh Verma, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Jai Singh Yadav, learned counsel for the respondent no.4.
(2.) The petitioner has not made a clean and complete disclosure of all facts in the writ petition. The facts are not pleaded with clarity. However, from the order dated 28.5.2003 passed by the Commissioner, Gorakhpur Division, Gorakhpur, which is annexed as annexure 1 to the writ petition the essential facts can be prised out. The order dated 28.5.2003 passed by the learned Commissioner, Gorakhpur Division, Gorakhpur, in the appeal instituted by the petitioner records the following facts.
(3.) The petitioner was accused of various acts of misconduct like electricity theft, acts of theft at the residence of Assistant Engineer and absence from duty. The petitioner was found guilty of the charges and his services were terminated in the year 1999. The petitioner took the order of termination in appeal. The appellate authority by order dated 1.8.2001 remanded the matter for fresh consideration/enquiry after adopting the procedure laid down by law.;